Estimates Vote

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $91,807,000

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, $2,079,000

Legislative Council, $5,963,000

House of Assembly, $8,894,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $11,324,000

Auditor-General’s Department, $16,191,000

State Governor’s Establishment, $3,406,000

Minister:

Hon. J.W. Weatherill, Premier.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Hallion, Chief Executive Officer, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms S. Pitcher, Deputy Chief Executive, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr J. Moule, Executive Director, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr A. Martin, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr R. Crump, Acting Clerk, House of Assembly.

Mr K. Nelson, Chief Finance Officer, Legislature.

Mr S. Campbell, Acting Executive Director, Business and International Development.

Mr S. O'Neill, Auditor-General, Auditor General's Department.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate a change of departmental advisers. I understand that the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed on a timetable for today's proceedings. That is correct?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 26 September 2014 for inclusion in the Hansard supplement.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to be giving the call for asking questions, based on about three questions per member, alternating each side, and supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of a committee may, at the discretion of the Chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to his or her advisers for a response.

I also advise that for the purposes of the committees television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and to introduce his advisers. I will call on the lead speaker of the opposition to make a statement, if the member wishes, after that, and then we will call on members for questions. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I begin by first introducing the people who are sitting with me: the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Mr James Hallion and, in terms of the order in which we will have people assisting me, initially it will be the House of Assembly and Legislative Council Joint Parliamentary Services, Mr Rick Crump, Acting Clerk of the House of Assembly, and Kent Nelson, Chief Finance Officer. Then, once the questions have been exhausted on that matter, we will then be inviting representatives from the Auditor-General's Office, then the State Governor's Establishment and, finally, DPC. If members can direct their questions in that fashion, we can release the various officers to go back to their duties.

I will begin with some opening remarks, first concerning the budget. The government's budget upholds the commitments we made to the people of South Australia at this year's election. It is also framed as a response to the obvious challenges that exist with the closure of Holden's in 2017—indeed, the cessation of all car production in Australia by that date. This has required us to frame a budget that focuses on the sustainability of the budget, of course, but also supporting the transformation of the automotive sector, as well as focusing on infrastructure to maintain jobs in our economy.

The decisions made by our government in this budget reflect the way we want to support the community, work with business and create opportunities in South Australia. The budget maintains funding required under intergovernmental agreements, including important national partnerships, partnerships that were signed by our state government with the commonwealth government.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the federal government with its most recent budget. The Abbott government's budget unleashed a raft of cuts to programs and benefits that will hurt the most vulnerable people in our community. We have seen changes that directly affect the financial situation of the lowest income earners in our community.

It seeks to make the cost of obtaining a university education much more expensive to prospective students. It also cuts funding for training and for pensioner concessions and, most damagingly, without consultation and just a few weeks before we delivered our state budget, the federal government's budget tore up signed contracts with the states on hospital and education funding.

The decisions of the federal government set out in the federal budget are a substantial challenge to South Australia, and they do not assist us in one single respect with the major challenge we have in front of us in relation to jobs. The commonwealth's funding cuts equal $898 million over four years, and the health and education cuts equal $5.5 billion over the next 10 years. The impact of the commonwealth's failure to maintain growth in hospital funding will see a significant increase in waiting lists in emergency departments, and we expect that elective surgery waiting times will also more than double if these cuts do come into existence.

As we made clear on state budget day, the South Australian government will not be rushed into making decisions on how we respond to this massive challenge. I am determined to place pressure on the federal government to reverse these cuts; they are unfair, and they hurt the most vulnerable people in our community.

On 2 July 2014, I convened the first meeting of the federal government response task force, which includes representatives from a range of leading businesses and community groups and employee associations. Task force members conveyed consistently strong concerns about the impact of the federal budget cuts on South Australians. They particularly highlighted the effects of the cuts on health, the education sectors, welfare recipients, social welfare service providers and senior citizens.

Our concern is that the federal budget represents only the tip of the iceberg. As Joe Hockey said in his budget speech, 'this is the first step' and, ominously, just last night, Mr Hockey said that, if he cannot get his measures through the Senate, he will find other mechanisms for imposing these cuts. I believe that the commonwealth government will seek to devolve further responsibilities to the states through the white paper on reform of federation and the white paper on taxation reform, two incredibly important documents that are about to be produced.

Of most concern to South Australians is that these processes will put at risk Australia's system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. This is a very important principle. It is a principle that no matter where you live in Australia you can expect the same level of service; it equalises the capacity of each state and territory to provide that level of service, having regard to their capacity to raise revenue and having regard to the needs of their citizens.

Any attempt to undermine the horizontal fiscal equalisation arrangements would not only have serious consequences for South Australia, putting up to $1.1 billion in annual funding at risk, but also forever change the nature of our federation, and it is something that the South Australian government needs to stand up and fight against. I will continue to campaign strongly on these important issues, and I call on the opposition to support our efforts to reject measures that will hurt South Australians. There is absolutely no reason why there should not be a bipartisan approach on these questions. I hope that all members of the South Australian parliament will support us in these efforts.

The CHAIR: Before we continue, Premier, could you help the table and direct us to the page where the lines sit that we are about to open questioning on?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is Budget Paper 3, Appendix C on page 170, the last four lines: House of Assembly, then skip a line, Joint Parliamentary Services and then Legislative Council.

The CHAIR: So, it is Budget Statement, page 170.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, are you going to make a statement?

Ms CHAPMAN: Just briefly, if I may. I have received notice from the government that all officers for all the agencies are going to be present throughout the entire time. I will not be dealing with all those, but other members of the committee may. I am a little disappointed that we do not have some breakdown, and I apologise in advance for all those who are here from the various agencies who are apparently going to be spending the full time here. Historically, it has been identified in certain categories so that they are not inconvenienced, but—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Let's be clear about that. I have just done that: we have the House of Assembly, the Legislative Council and the Joint Parliamentary Services line. I have the officers and we are available to answer your questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have before me correspondence from the Chief of Staff of the Premier, confirming that everyone will be in attendance the entire time, in response to our request to identify if there were certain areas. I appreciate that the Premier is having everybody here all the time, and that is noted and there is no dispute in relation to that. I just apologise in advance for those who might be sitting here during the entire time.

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, before you continue, the table has exactly what is going to happen, so this could not have been a secret.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have a list of the publication of the estimates committee which lists the six areas of jurisdiction which are up for questioning. There is no identification of time.

The CHAIR: One can only presume there has been a problem in communication then.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I see what you have?

The CHAIR: It is not a secret. I have not prepared that myself; it has been prepared by the table, which means they have known about it for quite some time, I think.

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed, that confirms exactly what I have said, and I will say it again for the record—that is, that for all the six areas of jurisdiction that are up for questioning all members of the department are here, and the parliament, but none has been identified for a period of time. I just make that point. Having done so, I will try to make it easier for them and indicate that I do not have any questions on the Legislative Council (other members may have) and on the House of Assembly.

The CHAIR: I have just been advised, member for Bragg, that if you want us to we can open all the lines, but I am advised that this is not abnormal procedure. Perhaps if you just go on with your opening statement, as we do not have a lot of time and I want you to be able to ask as many questions as you can.

Ms CHAPMAN: We do have; everything is open for the whole period. That is what I am saying.

The CHAIR: I can officially read that, if that is what you want.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I identify what has been published: the Legislative Council, House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services, State Governor's Establishment, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Auditor-General's Department. That is what we had published.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, and what I am inviting you to do, because I have officers next to me, is to direct questions on the House of Assembly, Legislative Council and Joint Parliamentary Services first, and then we can dismiss these people as we go.

The CHAIR: That is right. I do not see that as a problem.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is not a problem, except that we have had it confirmed to us that all would be available throughout the entire period. I just place that on the record.

The CHAIR: We can do that if you wish, but we are trying to make it easy by having each section individualised. If you do not have your questions sorted that way—

Ms CHAPMAN: We have.

The CHAIR: Why not get started with your opening statement and we are away.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have made my opening statement.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question then, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do. I start at page 170 for the House of Assembly. Will the Premier confirm to the committee whether there has been any appointment made for the Clerk of the House of Assembly?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am advised that, to the best of the knowledge of the officers, there has been no appointment made.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has any recommendation been received from the panel?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the officers we have probably would not be aware of that. That would be a question best directed to the Speaker. I certainly have no knowledge.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will refer to this now because of the opening statement: Budget Paper 1, page 7 refers to the whole of agency and, in your opening statement, Premier, you indicated your disquiet (I think that is the most kind description) at the approach of the federal government and the financial contribution that it has made through its budget.

My question is: given the lead-up to the federal budget with the audit commission and your campaign in the media both prior to and post the federal budget, is it correct that prior to the federal budget you and your office did not send one piece of correspondence to the federal government, the Prime Minister or any federal minister on the audit commission or the federal budget itself, lobbying against the looming cuts?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know where the honourable member was, but I based a whole election campaign on the question of standing up to the Abbott government. I do not think we could have communicated more clearly our warning about the cuts or the fact that I would stand up against those cuts. Indeed, when the audit commission handed down its recommendations I think we were scathing about its recommendations and sought to campaign against it. Although I must say that, as ferocious and damaging as the audit commission's recommendations were, we were taken by surprise at the depth of the cuts that were made in the federal budget, especially given that only a few short weeks before that all the state and territory ministers were meeting at a COAG meeting with the Prime Minister where not one inkling was given of the fact that these cuts were on the way.

Indeed, the public remarks that were made by the federal government, such as they existed about the audit commission report, were that it was merely a report and that it did not represent government policy. So, in all respects we were being encouraged to believe that those cuts were not imminent and that they were still the subject of consideration and representation. It was with some degree of surprise and obvious anger that every state and territory minister greeted the federal budget, which went in some respects even further than a number of the cuts foreshadowed in the audit commission report.

Ms CHAPMAN: Notwithstanding that Premier, having had the audit commission report published in the lead up to the budget, no correspondence has gone from your office either as Premier or Treasurer according to the freedom of information responses received by us. My question is: given the notice of the audit commission and statements made at the federal level, why didn't you spend or send any correspondence or any submission in relation to these imminent cuts?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think it misunderstands the nature of the relationship between the commonwealth and state government and how the commonwealth government has sought to manage that process.

There are two very important processes that are underway: there is the White Paper in relation to both the financial system—the commonwealth/state financial arrangements—and also in relation to federation. When we raised our concerns at COAG concerning these issues, we were advised that the proper forum for the resolution of our concerns about those matters were those processes, and, completely inconsistent with that advice, the federal budget was handed down which pre-empts a number of the critical decisions that need to be taken in that matter.

Just consider it for a moment: $5.5 billion worth of cuts that have been made into the health and education sector from South Australia alone—$80 billion across the nation—there is no serious commentator that believes that those cuts were imposed in a way that could be absorbed by states and territories. No state and territory minister believes that. They are obviously a transparent attempt to force the states to come back to the commonwealth and ask for an increase in the GST. Everybody accepts that that is the strategy.

In that sense, they are an attempt to pre-empt the very processes the federal government laid down for the state and territories to engage in the process of discussion about taxation reform and the processes of the reform of the federation. That is why you got the anger that you got from every state and territory minister. That is why they all met together, at my request, in Sydney, to express the strongest possible opposition to these pre-emptive cuts that were made by the commonwealth government in the budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for that Premier. Obviously, the days of hearing the Premier waltz into this house brandishing a letter, 'I have written to the Prime Minister' over and over again is clearly not going to be part of your agenda. Can I then move to Budget Paper 6, page 90.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I cannot leave that without comment. I do not accept what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said about our level of communication with the commonwealth government concerning the commission of audit. I have spoken about the arrangements that we put in place at COAG for our contribution to these matters.

I can also confirm that the government did indeed write to the senate inquiry in relation to the commission of audit, and put forward a South Australian submission in relation to that matter, and in the context of our deliberations at COAG the whole question of the commission of audit was subsumed within the various arrangements for state and territory governments to have input in relation to the question of taxation reform and the shape of federation.

Ms CHAPMAN: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 171 in the program on business: will the Chief Executive, Mr James Hallion, be supplied with additional resources to undertake his new role announced as the Private Sector Development Coordinator as at 8 July?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is not strictly within this portfolio line, but the answer to the question, to save you having to ask it through the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, is that we will be consolidating resources within the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to support Mr Hallion in relation to his role as Coordinator-General in relation to those private sector developments.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many projects is Mr Hallion estimated to handle per year in this role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It depends who comes forward, really. It is an invitation to people who have projects over $3 million that are stuck in some form of barrier and they approach the government, so it really, I suppose, depends on the nature and extent of the approaches to government. We have not been able to estimate that. We only have anecdotal evidence of projects which are job-creating and which are stuck in some system, whether it be commonwealth, state or local government or through some other reason they are unable to reach finalisation, and we are anxious to hear about those. That is why we have created this process.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do we have any idea how many are in that bureaucratic hurdle impasse at the moment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just ask, then, how developers or those who are wanting to avail these services of this new position are able to contact Mr Hallion? Are they going to be able to ring him up or make an appointment with him? Is there some office or support staff that are going to screen it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, really we have made an open invitation. Obviously, we are contacting employer associations and developers directly—we are obviously aware of projects just through representations that are made to various ministers—so direct communication with Mr Hallion. He is being proactive about it; he is also having meetings with groups of organisations and seeking to send the message out. Obviously, we are seeking to communicate this publicly and they can contact Mr Hallion directly at the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the process, then, for this project, is there going to be any register kept of those who identify themselves as requiring assistance in this capacity?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There will obviously be a list kept and they will be dealt with as and when we are able to deal with their issues. As I said at the time of announcing this, some people may well have had projects that have been rejected in the past for good reasons and they might seek to relitigate their issues. Obviously, we are not interested in those sorts of projects. There may be others that are on a lengthier process of approval for good reason, just because of the nature or complexity of the particular development, but there may be others that are stuck for reasons where the government can use its good offices to unstick the project.

It may be that it is not a state government problem. It may be a local government problem or a commonwealth problem or maybe actually a problem that is not even the responsibility of government—it may be a financing issue that we may be able to assist with. But in any event, whatever it is, if it is job-creating and it is of a substantial size, we are anxious to hear from these businesses so that we can make sure that we accelerate the rate of job creation in our economy.

The CHAIR: Just before I call the deputy leader again, can I just establish if there are any questions to my right? Deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: So there will be a list kept, yes, but will there be a register that is publicly accessible or available to identify who has made applications and essentially, ultimately, what the result has been?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we will be anxious to tell people when there have been successes, I suppose, of these projects. I do not think there is any plan to keep another piece of bureaucracy which will require maintenance. This is meant to be a process that really has very little formality around it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand, of course, you might want to make announcement of the successes, but in relation to those who apply for support in this regard, will there be any restriction on that information being available, as to who has applied and what the outcome has been?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It will be accessible in the ordinary way.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Just so I have the process clear: is the support staff for this going to be placed in Planning, Transport and Infrastructure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Under whose area of responsibility are they? Is that in Infrastructure, or Planning?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Sorry, could you just repeat that question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Under whose area? Is that under Transport, Infrastructure or Planning, or Major Projects?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, they will be within the Planning agency, within the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Planning agency; thank you. Is there a budget allocated for it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is existing resources that will be transferred across.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, when—

The CHAIR: I am just advised by the table staff that that line is not actually open.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I understand that, but in relation to the support services that are coming from it, I am referring, actually, to—

The CHAIR: As long as the Premier is happy to continue, that will be fine.

Ms CHAPMAN: Premier, you are responsible for the appointment of and dismissal of chief executives of all the departments. When Mr Hook’s services were terminated a few months ago, apart from his entitlements there were some $300,000 paid out to him in advance as part of the termination arrangements. Was that $300,000 cost of your decision to terminate Mr Hook paid out of your resources or met within the DPTI budget expenses?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: All agencies meet the cost of their chief executive out of their budgets.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, even if you make the decision to terminate that person, you do not take it into your portfolio of cost?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is just imposed upon the department that has that head?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is right.

Ms CHAPMAN: Was the cost of terminating Mr Fred Hansen as CEO of Renewal SA similarly applied to another department under Planning, and, if so, how much was it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He was employed within Renewal SA and it is borne by that budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you know what the termination payment was?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think those matters have already been made public, but they are matters for the various ministers in those portfolios.

The CHAIR: The member for Bright.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I just clarify; if there are not to be any questions on the Joint Parliamentary Services or House of Assembly, I could—

The CHAIR: Yes; are there going to be any questions?

Ms CHAPMAN: Not from me, but I do not know about other committee members.

The CHAIR: So, we do not know. What budget paper are you going to refer to?

Mr SPEIRS: Budget Paper 4, so it is not—

The CHAIR: What we are trying to establish is whether we could let these officers go.

Ms CHAPMAN: We invited them to do that a month ago, actually—to identify what times that they would want to be here, and not be here for the whole time. But, given that our response was that they would be here throughout the whole time, we have not given a breakdown of that. So, that was my point, Madam Chair. I am indicating that I do not have any other questions of the Legislative Council or the representative from the House of Assembly or Joint Parliamentary Services.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If we could just ask these two gentlemen to—they will not be very far away, obviously, because they work in this building, so maybe if we were to ask them to return?

The CHAIR: We are just anxious to try to close a line somewhere to keep some sort of form happening here. Are you happy for us to close the line?

Ms CHAPMAN: As long as other members are happy with it. We try to be helpful.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Look, I do not want to be awkward. If somebody then thinks of something, we can always quickly recover things.

The CHAIR: Our problem is we cannot close the line—that is what I am being told. So, we are going to have to leave it open, obviously, if we cannot get an indication from the member for Bright or the member for Morialta as to where their questions lie.

Mr GARDNER: I do not have any questions on the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council, ma'am.

The CHAIR: Very well. Are we going to close this line? We will close the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly and the Joint Parliamentary Service, and I thank the officers for their attendance. Member for Bright.

Mr SPEIRS: My question is from Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 164, on program 1, which refers to cabinet advice and support. In particular, in relation to the Emergency Management Council of cabinet and State Emergency Management Committee, which is chaired by your CEO James Hallion, can the Premier now confirm that the State Emergency Management Committee met on Wednesday 25 June to discuss issues of escalated contamination at Clovelly Park?

The CHAIR: Can we just have a recap of where you are at, member for Bright?

Mr SPEIRS: Page 164, Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, program 1. That is due to the fact that the secretariat of the State Emergency Management Committee sits within the cabinet office.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we took that question on notice on the last sitting day, and we will be bringing back an answer.

Mr SPEIRS: Yes, I understand that the Premier took that question on notice on 3 July in question time, but are you able to provide an answer to that now?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The question has been asked, it has been taken on notice, and we will bring back an answer.

Mr SPEIRS: I will continue with that line of questioning. Was the meeting of the State Emergency Management Committee called with just two days’ notice?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said, we will bring back our answers.

Mr SPEIRS: Did the Premier have discussions with the chief executive of his department on Monday 23 June that led to notice of the State Emergency Management Committee being given that day for Wednesday 25 June?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am referring any questions about the Clovelly Park issue to the Minister for the Environment. He is the relevant minister who has responsibility for these matters. Any other matters that touch on questions for cabinet will not be answered in this place.

Mr SPEIRS: I am continuing with this line of questioning, as the chief executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet chairs that committee. Did cabinet discuss the Clovelly Park contamination on Monday 23 June?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, we do not answer questions about what is discussed in cabinet.

Mr SPEIRS: Did the Emergency Management Council of cabinet meet to discuss escalated contamination at Clovelly Park prior to 2 July when the opposition first raised this issue in parliament, and when were these meetings held?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I say, we do not discuss cabinet deliberations or decisions. It is out of order, apart from anything else, and there is a practice of not talking about those matters.

Mr SPEIRS: Premier, why is escalated contamination at Clovelly Park so serious that the State Emergency Management Committee was convened at two days' notice, but not so serious that residents have to wait for a public relations plan before being advised?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is the same question, and I do not accept the premise that is contained within the question. At all times, the government has had one thing on its mind; that is, to make sure that the health and safety of residents, and ensuring that they have proper information in a timely fashion, was paramount.

Mr SPEIRS: Can the Premier advise how many times the State Emergency Management Committee has met in the last 12 months?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take that question on notice and bring back an answer.

Mr SPEIRS: In relation to escalated air contamination at Clovelly Park, why did the government spend 48 days developing a public relations strategy when there is standard EPA protocol for advising the public?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a question that should be directed to the other minister, but I do not accept the premise and it was not 48 days spent developing a public relations strategy.

Mr SPEIRS: Why did the government not follow the standard EPA protocol on their website which states:

The EPA's first steps are to place notification on the EPA public register, the EPA website and a public notice in the local media.

This protocol goes on to say:

…urgent information to be communicated face-to-face and with follow up letters.

The CHAIR: I am concerned that we are continuing down an area that has already been indicated is not part of this morning's questioning.

Mr GARDNER: That is an argument. It is still in the budget papers.

The CHAIR: I am being advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify this? At this stage the Premier has taken some questions on notice and indicated that some issues should go to specific ministers, and the others he has declined to answer—I accept that—but there has been no consistent rejection of the question, which is in relation to the provision of support to cabinet and cabinet committees.

The CHAIR: We will continue and see what happens.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate we do not have very many answers, but—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This question has no relationship with anything within this budget line—

The CHAIR: No, we have been indulging.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and it is a transparent attempt to ask questions about matters that should be directed to the relevant minister.

Mr SPEIRS: Deputy Speaker, I would argue that because the State Emergency Management Committee and the secretariat for that sits within the cabinet office the support and knowledge and understanding of some of these issues would also be within this budget line.

The CHAIR: We will have to listen to each question then and see.

Mr SPEIRS: Is it an appropriate standard for your government that the social housing minister was made aware on 11 June of Clovelly Park contamination rising above acceptable levels yet did not inform the affected Housing Trust tenants?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, this is directly a matter for the Minister for Social Housing. You should direct the question to her.

Mr SPEIRS: When did the Premier first become aware of Clovelly Park contamination rising above acceptable levels?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not going to disclose cabinet deliberations.

Mr SPEIRS: Was the Premier aware that the government rejected a request from the Local Government Association representative on the State Emergency Management Committee to inform the City of Marion of the contamination?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, this is directly a matter for the Minister for Environment who, on the public record, has said the reason that request was rejected is so that the first people who heard about it would be residents, but of course the opposition decided that they knew much better and decided to go down and scare those residents, who are some of the most vulnerable citizens in our community and, unfortunately, we are left with what we now have.

Mr SPEIRS: When was the local member, the member for Elder, advised of the escalated air contamination in the Clovelly Park area?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is a question that was already asked in parliament and bears no relationship to any of my responsibilities.

The CHAIR: And it has already been part of question time. Was it last week? I am sure there was a question on that last week.

Mr SPEIRS: Did the Minister for Health refuse the request of the Minister for Environment to co-sign a document prepared for cabinet in relation to escalated contamination at Clovelly Park?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The member knows that that is not a question that is proper to be asked or answered.

Mr SPEIRS: Given that the government has been aware of dangerous contamination in the Clovelly Park area for six years, why was no relocation strategy put in place for residents in that area?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not accept the premise of the question, and that question should be directed to the relevant minister. What we do know, from the considerable history of this matter, is that residents have been consistently informed all the way along the process of the steps that have been taken concerning contaminated groundwater, and that has been occurring over a number of years.

Tests have occurred and as relevant information has become known it has been provided to those residents. It is very sad fact that this matter is now being seized upon by the opposition in a way to score a political point, but it also has the effect of scaring and unnerving a range of residents in a way which I think is quite inappropriate.

Mr SPEIRS: Why are Clovelly Park residents of contamination zone homes only now being evacuated, given that they were left in their homes in 2009 when contamination first reached trigger levels?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Almost none of what the member recounts as facts, as the premise for his question, do I accept. The emotive use of the phrase 'evacuation', the use of the phrase 'trigger levels', none of those matters has any basis in fact. I invite him to direct his questions to the relevant minister where he will be set straight.

Mr SPEIRS: Can you advise why there has been no contamination testing for people living in the area of the contamination zone in both Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I say that people who live in those areas are thrilled at the way the opposition is talking down their property values by suggesting that there are dangerous contaminants which are affecting the health and wellbeing of those residents. I am sure they will be getting significant communication soon from those residents thanking them for the downward spiral in their property values and the difficulty of moving from their houses by the way in which they are talking up this issue in an alarmist and inappropriate fashion.

The CHAIR: Before we continue, member for Bright, could we perhaps establish with the deputy leader and the members for Bright and Morialta whether they have any questions on the State Governor's Establishment, which is a line of $3,406,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I do not.

The CHAIR: Perhaps we will shut that line, if that is in order with everyone. We will close the line. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments completed.

Ms CHAPMAN: We all wish the Governor well after it is redecorated at, I think, about $3½ million.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Chair, might I also inquire whether there are any questions concerning the Auditor-General.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, member for Bright, member for Morialta?

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not have any at this stage, but I may.

Mr GARDNER: I think there may be later.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will leave that then.

The CHAIR: Member for Bright, are you continuing?

Mr SPEIRS: Thank you, Chair. In 2009, when the Premier was minister for environment and conservation, 12 deep groundwater monitoring wells were drilled in the vicinity of Woodland Road, Mitchell Park, and a number of these wells returned elevated groundwater contamination levels. The government was aware that groundwater movement heads in a north-westerly direction, yet why was no testing of Mitchell Park undertaken?

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Madam Chair, I am just wondering what line of the budget papers the member for Bright is referring to. My understanding of what happens in estimates is that we refer to the budget papers quite specifically. I know he is a newer member, so I understand that he may not be aware of the protocols, but I would ask you to rule on that because it is a bit hard to follow if we do not know what his reference is.

Mr SPEIRS: I opened this group of questions referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 164, program 1, which refers to cabinet advice and support, because the State Emergency Management Committee is served by officers within the cabinet office.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I understand that, but these questions are not germane, particularly when we are talking about the Premier when he had previous portfolios. I am not really sure how that relates particularly to your most recent question. Admittedly, I interrupted it, but I do not understand what the connection would be, even with that reference.

Mr GARDNER: All will be clear.

The CHAIR: We are struggling here as well, so how soon will it be clear, I guess, is the question.

Mr SPEIRS: This is my final question on this—

The CHAIR: This is your final question on this line.

Mr SPEIRS: —first frolic into estimates, yes.

The CHAIR: Let's not interrupt the flow then.

Mr SPEIRS: Did the Premier get that question or shall I repeat it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will refer it to the relevant minister.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is you—in 2009, you were the minister.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is not me—

The CHAIR: Not now.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The relevant minister is the Minister for the Environment.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a question.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, and it refers to?

Ms CHAPMAN: Same section. Has the secretariat to the Emergency Management Committee and the Emergency Management Council been cut, from two FTEs to 1.6 FTEs, and will the reduction in the number of staff in this area reduce the capacity of the state to respond to these emergencies?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes is the answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can the Premier expand as to why, or is it just that, yes, it has been cut and that, yes, it will affect the capacity to be able to act in this area.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. I was answering yes to the first part of your question. There is a savings initiative that all agencies have to meet, and this is the way in which the savings initiative has been allocated.

The CHAIR: Do you have—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. Budget Paper 6, page 90.

The CHAIR: Page 90.

Ms CHAPMAN: While I am turning to it myself, I am wondering whether, at some stage, the Premier is going to announce what line the reference is to Tony Abbott and the federal Treasurer, but I am sure that he will let me know in due course why he did an opening statement on it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am happy to do that: it is intergovernmental relations.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that right?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Obviously, the cabinet office and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet have substantial responsibilities in relation to responding to the federation white paper and also the taxation reform white paper, which have profound effects on the commonwealth/state financial relations. The federal budget makes no bones about the fact that it is seeking to fundamentally reshape the nature of commonwealth/state financial relations, so that is why we made those remarks in the opening statement.

The CHAIR: In the absence of a page number, I will move to my page number 90. My question is: in respect of the savings task, Mr Hallion told the Budget and Finance Committee, on 28 May 2013, that the FTE reductions associated with DPC's entire savings task at the time were 277 in 2013-14, 334 in 2014-15, and 387 in 2015-16. Can the committee be updated with the new numbers and advised what proportion of these are (a) identified and how these cuts will be made; and (b) yet to be identified?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will endeavour to hunt that out for you. It is worth mentioning, though, just so that you are comparing apples with apples, that those savings targets were associated with the agency in its extended form before the machinery of government changes, which obviously put a number of those agencies in a different place. The way in which the department is managing the budget savings in the future, though, under the current configuration of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in 2013-14 I think we better take on notice. The numbers I have are pre machinery of government changes, and we may have to make some applicable changes so that they make sense with the common agency, so I will take them on notice.

Mr SPEIRS: Referring to the same part of the budget, Budget Paper 6, page 90, Premier, can you advise the number of targeted voluntary separation packages within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet which were given out in the 2013-14 financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will supply a number, bearing in mind that some of these will not be in my portfolio: they will be in areas that are covered by the whole of the department. These are the numbers as at 30 May 2014, for the financial year 2013-14, within the whole of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet: 39 TVSPs were accepted.

Ms CHAPMAN: As a follow-up to that, we are now in July, so does the chief executive have knowledge of any other TVSPs in the last month?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The number we have, which is not necessarily individuals because these are full-time equivalent numbers, is 84.6 as at 30 June 2014.

Mr SPEIRS: In addition, would you be able to give a monetary value on those 84.6 TVSPs?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The monetary value of what?

Mr SPEIRS: How much was paid out in total.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This number appears to be $13,682,415. We might take the opportunity to take it on notice, but that is our best estimate at this point. It might include accrued leave, so it may not be the actual TVSP number. In fact, the number which is just TVSP looks like $10,516,024, but we will clarify that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 160 refers to the State Strategic Plan: when can we expect the next project report on the State Strategic Plan targets, and are you planning on changing any of the targets?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Apparently the Audit Committee report is due this year and there are no present plans to change any of the targets—but that may occur through that process.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the annual cost to government of monitoring, updating the community consultations, etc. in regard to the Strategic Plan? In particular, how many full-time equivalents are allocated?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It would be difficult for us to give you a number on that because it is embedded really in the work of all agencies because every agency has a responsibility for monitoring and implementing elements of South Australia's Strategic Plan.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to accept that—that each of the agencies in some way annually report as to how they are going with the strategic targets that are relevant to their portfolios—but my understanding of the budget is that your department is responsible for the monitoring, going out for consultations, providing the audit, etc. Perhaps I have not been clear in my question: what is the total cost of your department for that role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are no officers who are dedicated solely to the task of monitoring and implementing South Australia's Strategic Plan; it is embedded in the duties of a number of officers within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: So is the Audit Committee just simply a paid consultation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Could you repeat that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: So the Audit Committee that does the review, for example, is that not in-house; is it paid a consultancy fee?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are public servants who have responsibilities for, amongst other things, supporting that committee, and then there are committee members who, if they are not public servants, would be entitled to a fee associated with that if they are not otherwise remunerated by government. I think our best estimate of the total cost for remuneration of the South Australian Strategic Plan Audit Committee members in 2013-14 was $1,416.

Ms CHAPMAN: Essentially then, apart from the Audit Committee meeting for the purposes of giving its assessment, there is no dedicated personnel in your department in charge of the monitoring and review of the Strategic Plan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There are people who are responsible for this, it is just that they are responsible for it amongst other duties.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

Mr SPEIRS: This just continues the line of questioning on the Strategic Plan from Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 160. Former premier Rann was very keen to let it be known that there would be regular updates of the plan, and they were very rigorous updates. The plan was released in 2004, updated in 2006 and then 2010, which would, I suppose, logically figure that an update would be required in 2014. I think the thinking behind that was that it would follow a state election. Are there plans to undertake an update of the plan in the same way that it was undertaken in 2006 and 2010?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The premise of the question is based on a set of arrangements that were not available to the previous premier that are available now. We have taken a very conscious effort to engage the community in a much more regular and extensive fashion, so rather than seeing the update of the South Australian Strategic Plan or communicating with the electorate as being something that occurs on a four-yearly basis, or an irregular basis, we are attempting to inculcate this into the daily work of agencies.

The approach that is going to be taken is perhaps more likely to be evolutionary rather than the approach that has been taken previously because of the change in the nature of the way in which we communicate with people. The website, yourSAy, is a centralised online consultation hub for government to engage the public in the public sector on issues that matter for them and that is changing the way in which we do the business of government and its relationship with the citizen.

There have been a range of other initiatives arising out of the government public sector reform agenda such as Simplify and the Citizens' Jury. There is a whole range of mechanisms for communicating with the public which are quite different from the days when the previous premier was constructing those arrangements. It is also worth pointing out that since I have been in the role we have selected seven key areas of focus—our seven priorities for action—which sit as choices and are the key focuses for action in South Australia, and we will maintain that focus.

Mr SPEIRS: I commend the Premier for his good work around consultation, but my question was: has the South Australian Strategic Plan fallen in its relevance, because my understanding is that chief executive performance contracts and things like that are structured around the achievement of the targets in the plan, and the plan has quite a bit of currency across government. If we move towards a plan that evolves behind the scenes, does it correspondingly then lose its relevance and will it be updated? I guess when you are dealing with measurable targets you have to say, 'Okay, from 1 August 2014 we have to kick off a whole range of new targets so we can measure them.' If we are going to ease them in and out in a very haphazard way, does that essentially kill the plan?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Just because you do not change your targets all the time does not mean that that reduces the relevance or importance of the plan. In fact, strategy should change rarely—what should be changing is implementation. Given that this covers 100 targets, we are covering most areas of endeavour within the state government. Quite a lot of work and effort has gone into not only constructing these targets, but then updating them. Because many of them are long-term stretch targets, I think we would be subject to criticism from the other angle, that is, if we were routinely changing our strategies with shifting the goalposts, that would indicate a lack of resolve and commitment to the South Australian Strategic Plan.

So, I do not accept that, just because we are not proposing some massive rewrite of South Australia's Strategic Plan, South Australia's Strategic Plan has lost its relevance. It still remains a key focus for government. But it is true though that we have grafted onto South Australia's Strategic Plan seven areas of focus which we have said are really our priorities for action in government. That does not mean that government is just those seven things; there are obviously a hundred areas of endeavour that we pursue.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having identified, then, that the State Strategic Plan remains intact and that it remains an obligation of your heads of department to monitor the progress as to the achievement and how their operations within each department are achieved in each year (and they have detailed that in their annual report), that all being intact, and whilst you have indicated that there is a further new and different way of adding more regularly data as to how you might be progressing in that regard, the audit is twofold. One is to identify how the targets are tracking, and the second is to give any recommendation if the targets need to be changed or recommended to be changed.

If these are a significant key performance indicator for which your departments are to account, then surely this audit is not just a question of saying, 'What do the public say and what should we be amending for it?': it is an audit as to the effectiveness of whether the strategies your government are currently implementing are actually working towards the achievement. I think you said in the opening to these questions that the Audit Committee had met and you expect it to give a report at the end of the year, so my question is: given the answers you have given in between, is it going to give an audit as to how your government is tracking against these targets?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The first thing is that South Australia's Strategic Plan is not a plan for the government: it is a plan for South Australia. It has always been a plan for South Australia. It has been constructed through a broad process of consultation. Of course, the government has a key role in it, but it is a stretch target for the whole of South Australia. For a party that is dedicated to essentially minimising the role of government and maximising the role of the private sphere, to be always placing all of the responsibility and burden on the government I think misses the point about this plan.

I think that one of its key strengths is that it is a call to action for the South Australian community. Of course, that does not mean to say that we should not be audited as a community against it, and we are committed to doing that. I answered that question in the affirmative earlier. The quite precise mechanism for doing that is something that is yet to be established, but we are committed to doing that this year so that we can monitor our progress as a community against these targets.

Ms CHAPMAN: So has the Audit Committee met yet for this year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: When you say you are expecting their report this year, presumably before the end of December?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, I did not suggest that it would be necessarily they that would be doing the reporting. We do have a process for reviewing all of our boards and committees, so either they or some other process will ensure that an audit is produced.

Ms CHAPMAN: I made a note; perhaps I got it wrong, but I think to the first question, 'When next do you expect a progress report against the Strategic Plan?' your answer was that the Audit Committee report will be during this year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is right.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will that Audit Committee report include an assessment of how we are tracking against each of the targets?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. In respect of the boards and committees, which are at page 179, the government has also made some announcements about calling on a number of these committees to present their case as to why they should remain. Does your government pledge to abolish the following boards: the Capital City Committee; the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee; the Economic Development Board; the South Australian Government Finance Advisory Board; the WorkCover Board; Regional Communities Consultative Council; Premier’s Council for Women; health advisory councils; Teachers Registration Board; South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission; Motor Accident Commission Board; State Procurement Board; Advanced Manufacturing Council; EPA Board; Renewal SA Board; SA Water Board; Aboriginal Advisory Council; and/or the Motor Sport Board?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, we do not pledge to remove those boards, although they will abide by the process that we have put in place.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will it be cabinet who ultimately decides which of these boards remain and which go?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there a budget for any board member severance fees?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Generally speaking, there may be some rare exceptions but most board members would not be entitled to a severance fee for the abolition of a board.

Ms CHAPMAN: I accept that for some of these, because some of those are meeting-only fee payments but, if we were to take something like the SA Water Board, that is an appointment; it is to a certain time (usually over a period of years) and it is for an annual payment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Most boards are paid an annual fee, and some are paid sessional fees, so the sessional fee is an obvious answer. I was just asking whether annual fees are paid incrementally (quarterly, for instance) and what the situation would be if a board was abolished partway through the course of a year. I will take that question on notice; I do not think I have the answer. Apart from that question and the answer to that question, my advice is that there is no severance payment that would exist for a board member.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, there is no budget allocated in this budget for the forthcoming year for any kind of provision for severance?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, there is no provision for a severance payment in the budget.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the savings that are expected to be made, is there any budgeted amount of savings as a result of the abolition or streamlining of the boards and committees that you are to have in your government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There was already a pre-existing savings initiative that was booked to the budget, I think, some time ago. As part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Budget Review, we approved savings of $1.3 million per annum by reducing the cost of government-funded boards and committees, and that $1.3 million in 2013-14 rises to $1.4 million in 2017-18, but that is not the entire explanation for the process that we have now adopted.

Obviously, we are seeking to realise those savings, but if we were to abolish a larger number of boards there would obviously be a larger amount of savings. The principal motivation is not the savings, but rather the streamlining of the process of government; although, of course, it would make a useful contribution to a savings task for an agency.

Ms CHAPMAN: So having made the assessment under the mid-year budget announcement of $1.3 million that year and $1.4 million for this year for that initiative, what is the budgeted amount of savings for this forthcoming financial year of the new initiative?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, there is none, because we do not know where we are going to land—whether we will achieve more than what has already been budgeted.

Ms CHAPMAN: But there is no estimate?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no estimate.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 164 in program 1, why is there an increase of 5.8 full-time equivalents in the 2014-15 budget?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Is that the number from 75 to 80.8?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In the budget, there were two new arrangements that were put in place: one was additional full-time equivalent staff for the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many was that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Three, and there were three additional FTEs for the cabinet implementation and delivery unit, so an extra six.

Mr GARDNER: Why was there an increase from 64.2 in last year's budget to 75 as the estimated result from the 2013-14 year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The increase in FTEs reflects:

the transfer of the economic analysis division from Program 3: Business Competitiveness and International Engagement to program 1, 11 FTEs;

an understatement of the 2013-14 budget, 10 FTEs;

an increase in corporate FTEs allocated across programs, four FTEs;

additional FTEs transferred into the cabinet office from the office of state/local government relations, three FTEs;

the inclusion of the office of the deputy chief executive in program 1, three FTEs;

an overstatement the of 2013-14 estimated result, three FTEs, partly offset by the abolition of the office for state/local government relations effective 1 August 2013, 14 FTEs;

transfer of government communications advice unit from program 1 to Program 2: Strategic Engagement and Communications, five FTEs; and

transfer of the participation partnerships team from program 1 to Program 2: Strategic Engagement and Communications, four FTES.

I think all those ins and outs leave you with the net effect.

Ms CHAPMAN: On the same page 164, why is there that increase of $616,000 in supplies and services?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Supplies and services expenses of $1,804,000 to $2,420,000—that is the question. The increase in expenses primarily reflects:

an increase in corporate expenditure allocated across programs, $341,000;

funding for the social impact bonds initiative, $200,000;

a reclassification of employee benefits budgets to the services and supplies budget, $166,000;

funding for the public integrity initiative, $100,000;

full-year impact of the Crown Solicitor's new billing model, $32,000;

indexation between financial years partly offset by a one-off transfer of funding in 2013-14 from Program 3: Business Competitiveness and International Engagement to program 1, $200,000;

transfer of the supplies and services budget for participation in partnerships team from program 1 to Program 2: Strategic Engagement and Communications, $44,000; and

allocation of savings targets, $15,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: Within the cabinet office, Premier, what is the ratio of executive to non-executive positions?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Ten South Australian Executive Service positions out of a total of 75 full-time equivalents, so whatever that ratio is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Relative to other departments, Premier—

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will just clarify that. Program 1, that is cabinet office, yes—2013-14 that is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps we are at cross-purposes, Premier. The program 1 is Premier and Cabinet advice and support, which has approximately 80 full-time equivalents in it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is 75 FTEs and 10 of those are senior executive service. It is described as Premier and Cabinet advice and support, but it includes the economic analysis division and the Office of the Deputy Chief Executive and some corporate. There are some vacant positions there which might account for the difference between the number of FTEs.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anyway, there are 10 executives out of 75 approximately.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And that is into the whole of that program 1. Given the high number of the executives within cabinet office, why are these positions quarantined from the recent cuts to cabinet office and why were four ASO8s redeployed and no executive positions reduced?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It really depends on which year you look at. There have been a number of savings rounds. This year they have focused on non-executive positions. In previous years, there have been a number of executive positions that have been removed, so the overall objective obviously is to try to meet the savings target. In global, though, I think the effort has been shared between executive and non-executive positions.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you would say of the executive positions, it just happens that in this recent cut they were not targeted but they are under consideration continuously?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Of course, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The financial commentary section here refers to $1.3 million—an increase being due to the establishment of an across-government implementation unit. What is the role of this unit and how many FTEs does it have?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is an arrangement that really exists in many other jurisdictions we have considered, including within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canberra and also a similar unit in the UK. Obviously, successful implementation requires itself the design of best practice structures and policies to ensure that projects that are announced by government, decisions that are taken by government, are carefully monitored through to implementation, and that is what this project is all about. It will have three FTEs.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the role of the Senior Management Council?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Senior Management Council is a group of chief executives. The role of the Senior Management Council itself is undergoing some change. It has traditionally been a means by which all chief executives come together and share information, receive communications and deliberate on whole-of-government initiatives.

It is a means by which the chief executive of Premier and Cabinet communicates directly with chief executives about budget decisions and cabinet decisions and whole-of-government initiatives. Once again, the Senior Management Council is body that I think could be more effective. We are seeking to reform it in a way that it becomes more a board of directors for government rather than just simply a group of disconnected agencies.

Ms CHAPMAN: At the moment, though, does it come together once a month?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Every two weeks.

Ms CHAPMAN: At present, what is used to measure the effectiveness of this council?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think it is less grand than perhaps the name 'council' suggests. It is the bringing together of various chief executives from each of the principal agencies to share information and to work on areas of common challenge. Really, the outcomes are the ones that we take for ourselves in terms of budget performance and the collective performances that are reflected in chief executive agreements. Each minister has an agreement with their chief executive, and the performances of those chief executives are monitored and measured through that process, but they do come together to deal with collective performance, which is also reflected in chief executive performance agreements.

Ms CHAPMAN: At the moment, it meets two-weekly, and it has, obviously, significant information sharing as part of its agenda and how each of the departments might be progressing. Did I understand your earlier answer to indicate, Premier, that you have it in mind to make it more into a board?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I certainly think that it could play a more strategic role than it does at the moment. One of my ambitions is to lift the role and function of the Senior Management Council.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will it become a board?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No; I use 'board' in contradistinction to a group of people that comes together with the perspective of their own responsibilities at stake. When boards of directors come together, they are not necessarily just looking after their own particular areas of responsibility. The chief financial officer, or somebody who that might be an operations officer, not only comes bringing the concerns and imperatives of their own particular unit, but they come with the perspective of the whole of the organisation. It is that process that I have been seeking to encourage. It is at the heart of the changes that I have sought to bring into play in relation to collective performance that is reflected in chief executive agreements.

Ms CHAPMAN: What measurable outcomes were achieved by the Senior Management Council during 2013-14?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Really, the way in which chief executives and the Senior Management Council are capable of being judged is by the performance of each of their agencies and how they are able to effectively meet the strategic objectives of each of their agencies. The truth is that individual agencies do things which bear on the effectiveness of other agencies' work. I think an important example of that is the seven strategic priorities, none of which can be delivered by one agency alone.

We have been advancing on each of those seven strategic priorities for South Australia: the advanced manufacturing, the mining and services, creating a vibrant city, and premium food and wine from our clean environment, as well as the social issues: an affordable place to live, every chance for every child, safe communities and healthy neighbourhoods. It can be seen from each of those strategic priorities that there is no one agency that owns the whole of the effort in relation to those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: These strategic priorities, Premier, of your government, I am assuming that these are not seven strategic priorities that came at the recommendation of the council to government.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In fact, they did occur through a collective process. One of the first things I did when becoming Premier was to bring together all of the chief executives, all of the chiefs of staff and all of the ministers at a day-long planning session, where there was substantial preparation before that. What emerged from that were our seven strategic priorities and, really, they have been driving the priorities of government since that time.

Ms CHAPMAN: I accept, Premier, that heads of departments and others contributed to your development of the seven strategic priorities of your government, but that was not a resolution of the Senior Management Council. My question really was: what are the measurable outcomes they achieved as a council in the last financial year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They have been working to implement those seven strategic priorities. They are the government taking action. That is what the Public Service is: it is the implementation arm of the government policy. We lay down policies, and they administer and implement those policies and, more than that, they add initiatives which elucidate and pursue those overarching priorities. That is the work they have been doing: developing policies which further those strategic goals.

Ms CHAPMAN: I now move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 165, the sixth dot point, which highlights the Future Fund. In establishing the Future Fund, why did the government go against the Under Treasurer's advice—and I quote from the Under Treasurer, 'Any new reviews, including those received from mining, should be committed to paying off existing obligations in the first instance?'

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We take all advice on board and give it due consideration, but government makes policy decisions. The policy decisions that we take as a government are informed by advice but are not dictated to by it. Of course, the way in which this fund is constructed is that any contributions to the fund are first made only once there are surpluses that are available. The way in which the fund is constructed is that it creates a financial asset, which sits in the South Australian government books invested by Funds SA. In that way, it ensures that it makes a contribution to protecting the finances of the state.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who will be supervising it? Will it have a board, or will it be a person nominated in Treasury or your department?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Those are all matters that are matters for the Treasurer. He has responsibility for the establishment of that fund.

Ms CHAPMAN: When is it anticipated that it will be established?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are matters for the Treasurer. But, as I have said, it does not become relevant until a surplus is established.

Ms CHAPMAN: Premier, you have issued a $22,000 contract for Future Fund analysis—was this issued because you did not like the advice of Treasury or for some other reason? Essentially, if you have the report on this, can we have some understanding about the analysis that has been received and what the results were?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are all matters, I think, for the Treasurer to answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: When is the government intending to introduce the Future Fund legislation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, they are matters for the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to the same budget paper, page 165, seventh dot point: what is the government's plan for social impact bonds?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This was a particular initiative which I referred to minister Snelling for investigation and implementation. I can provide some advice about those matters. We released a discussion paper in December last year on the social impact bonds to explore the potential for the trial of social impact bonds in South Australia. There has been very strong interest in response to the discussion paper. More than 50 written submissions have been received and approximately 100 people attended a stakeholder consultation forum in February, representing not-for-profit service providers, potential investors and the general community.

The next step is to build capacity in the NGO sector to participate in a trial that will take place through a series of workshops. Following an open tender process, the government has selected Social Ventures Australia to deliver the workshops and develop online training materials. So, that is the next phase, if you like, in the arrangement.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Premier. That has been referred to—of how you had the forum attended by 100 people to explore the potential of the social impact bonds—but what services are in the scope for delivery via the social impact bonds? I am referring to the seventh dot point under your targets for the forthcoming financial year.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There has been no settled view about that yet, although potential focus areas in the discussion paper include child protection, preventing the placement of children in out-of-home care, reducing recidivism, reducing unnecessary transfers from nursing homes to hospital emergency departments and homelessness.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can you explain how the social impact bond is going to work? Who pays into it and what do they get?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: They are essentially philanthropic investors who are prepared to accept potentially lower rates of return in return for also getting some collateral social purpose.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, cheap labour in exchange for the common good. Is that what we are talking about?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, not at all. In fact, trials of social impact bonds in the United Kingdom and New South Wales have shown some encouraging early results, but it is too early to say with certainty how effective they are. Some people are actually prepared to make a private sector investment which might achieve a rate of return for themselves, but they are also interested in achieving a collateral social benefit.

I suppose it is a bit like some people who choose to invest in ethical investments in their superannuation fund which, interestingly enough, have a higher rate of return than the market rate of return, I was very pleased to read from my statement the other day. So, you can do good things and also make money. Isn't that a wonderful thing? I think that is what these people have in mind. If the programs are successful, the government pays a return to the investor commensurate with the level of success, using agreed measures of outcomes.

Mr GARDNER: The New South Wales trials are in relation to child protection and juvenile justice. The main British trial going on at the moment is in relation to the corrections area. Why is minister Snelling leading this work for us?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He had a particular interest in it. Obviously there are significant opportunities in the healthcare system, which is our largest area of expenditure, so it does represent the largest area of opportunity. However, they are all things that will perhaps be clearer in the fullness of time.

Mr GARDNER: So there is no proposal on the table at the moment to have that transfer specifically in the health sector, or are we just waiting to see what happens?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is early days. I am not aware of any specific health proposal, except for the one canvassed in the discussion paper about avoiding the inappropriate placement of people in hospitals from nursing homes.

Ms CHAPMAN: At the forum last year was it, for 800 people to come together and talk about the ideas? What has happened since?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think we decided, as I mentioned, that it was necessary before we moved to the next step to build the capacity in the non-government sector so that they will have the capacity to participate in the trial. I think there was a view that if we launched upon this without that capacity then it had a greater risk of failure. The organisation that we have selected to help with that has been involved in the Social Benefit Bonds Trial in New South Wales.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the agency in South Australia that has been identified?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is called Social Ventures Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: They are not a South Australian operation, are they?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not think it is based in South Australia but I think it has South Australian links to the people who will be providing support and services in South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much is allocated in this financial year to develop this or to support capacity-building activities?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: One might have to direct that question to minister Snelling.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. He has it as the Minister for Health?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Or has he been deputised to do it as part of your division—Health, alright. In Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 165 talks of the COAG highlights. How many full-time equivalents are employed by the COAG secretariat within cabinet office?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Once again, there is no dedicated COAG resource or even a dedicated intergovernmental relations resource, but there is an executive director in that particular area who is in the executive service and heads up the intergovernmental relations area.

Ms CHAPMAN: So there is an executive director but no staff?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, she would draw on a team across the whole of the cabinet office to perform her work.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given the reduction in the number of COAG meetings in recent years and the abolition of the COAG reform council, are there plans to reduce the duties for your executive director in this role?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Courtesy of the Prime Minister, it might be a fewer number of meetings, but he certainly created a significant amount of work for us. In some respects this intergovernmental relations element of government has assumed profound importance and, if anything, I imagine we will be allocating more resources rather than fewer resources.

Ms CHAPMAN: On page 167 in program 2, the first dot point is in relation to 'a strategy to defend the current approach to regional engagement'—why do we need that?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, we do not, because there is a typo there. It was meant to be 'a strategy to defend the current approach to horizontal fiscal equalisation', and then the rest of them were commas. Sorry about that; that is an error.

Obviously, horizontal fiscal equalisation is a $1.1 billion proposition for our state, and it is critical that we win that argument nationally. It is obviously the small states that are at great risk although, interestingly, even Queensland has had to dip into it and has become a net receiver of resources because of recent natural disasters. It demonstrates that it is a bit of a shock absorber within the federal system about the allocation of resources. We think there are powerful arguments, but they have to be run and at the moment the prevailing wisdom is that horizontal fiscal equalisation just represents essentially a drag on the competitiveness of the national economy.

Sadly, we have Senator Bob Day running around saying that we all need to be exposed to the harsh breezes of—I think he was extolling the virtues of suffering, if I recall. It seemed that somehow that made people stronger. It was a bit of a frightening glimpse of what the world might look like if Senator Day was running things.

Nevertheless, we have some very powerful arguments about HFE which are directed at the efficiency of the nation. Indeed, if resources were allocated purely on the basis of the HFE of population share, what you would find is a massive reallocation of resources to Western Australia, which would be inefficient, because Western Australia would be able to drive down the general level of business taxation. So there are powerful economic efficiency reasons for horizontal fiscal equalisation, leaving aside the equity questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Still under Program 2: the More than Cars campaign. Is it correct that the More than Cars T-shirts were made in China?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You should ask Steven Marshall—he was wearing one.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am asking you.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He should just look on his collar and just work out whether it says 'Made in China' or not.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given your government's commitment to the opportunities for local enterprises, I am asking you.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know. I think we sourced them from a South Australian business, Add Value Promotions, which is a member of the Australasian Promotional Products Association. The company managed the purchase of the T-shirts and printing process on behalf of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

The demand for the More than Cars T-shirts increased during the campaign. Therefore, the number of print runs required and printing quotes were sourced for each run. This resulted with some of the T-shirts being printed interstate and some being printed within South Australia. The decision was made on the basis of price and ability to deliver the T-shirts within the required time frame. Really, it depends which T-shirt you got, and that is why you should look on your label.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am assuming, Premier, that you did not sell these, so that is a giveaway as part of this campaign, and I expect they were gratefully received. Will you take on notice and make some inquiry as to whether these T-shirts were sourced from China?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I have said, it depends on which T-shirts you are talking about. Some were printed interstate and some were printed in South Australia. I doubt whether the shirts themselves—if that is what you are asking—were made in Australia, but we can take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: What was the cost of this campaign?

The CHAIR: $1.2 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is $1.2 million. I think Madam Chair is trying to be helpful with this contribution. Is there $1.2 million payment for campaign costs?

The CHAIR: For T-shirts?

Ms CHAPMAN: Right.

The CHAIR: Yes, the question was not clear, but I do understand.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is that part of that $1.2 million for this program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, the budget was $1.2 million but we spent $635,922. Sorry, it was the other way around.

Ms CHAPMAN: So you had a budget of $635,000 and spent $1.2 million?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is similar: the number we spent is $709,154.14 and the budget appears to be $1.2 million.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can you give us a breakdown then? If the total amount is the $709,000 figure, what was T-shirts, what was the website, and what was advertising or any other part of that campaign?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will take that question on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it appropriate that anyone who now visits this website (that is, www.morethancars.com.au) is now directed to the Labor Party's political website?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, I do not think there is any reference to an ALP website. From what we can gather, it is a reference back to the state government's policy on Building a Stronger South Australia, which is the state government policies which were all announced and promulgated well before caretaker.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is the website that has all your proposals and policies for the election?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, these were government decisions well before the election. There were no Building a Stronger South Australia policies announced during caretaker.

Ms CHAPMAN: When was the More Than Cars website shut down—before or after the election?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, the More Than Cars website is still there, so in some sense it is not shut down.

Ms CHAPMAN: It has no content, Premier. You say you still have the website, but there is nothing on it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It refers back to the Jobs Plan, which is government policy. Essentially, if you go to the website it refers you back to the Jobs Plan, which is essentially the response, if you like, to the closure of Holden. So, it exists there in that form.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many staff have been made redundant or will be made redundant at Carr Components, where the More Than Cars campaign was launched?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is really a matter for the relevant minister, although I think what we did discover is that, despite the Leader of the Opposition coming in here and telling everybody that there had been this redundancy, in fact what emerged was that the Carr Components company was in discussions with another company about the sale of their business, of the consolidation, if you like, of their business. I do not think we yet know what the ultimate result of that will be, but I will refer those matters to the relevant minister to give you an update, who will be minister Close.

Ms CHAPMAN: Premier, you have given us and you are going to give us a breakdown for the $700,000 you have spent but, given the $700,000 that was budgeted in 2013-14 for the More Than Cars campaign in the MYBR released on 3 December, why was another $450,000 needed, given that Holden announced its exit eight days later, on 11 December?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There were basically a number of phases in this campaign which were to be pursued, and then ultimately there had to be substantial modifications once the closure of Holden had taken place. That explains why a substantial chunk of the funding was not ultimately expended.

Ms CHAPMAN: I now move to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 168, and refer to the second dot point under Targets. What aspects of the government advertising spend need reform? The whole quote, Premier, is:

Continue to reform the oversight of the Government of South Australia's advertising expenditure.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is largely a savings initiative because we have a very large savings task. The 2010-11 state budget included a reduction of expenditure in government advertising of $18 million over four years, so it does require some management because this is a very substantial savings initiative. There is $4 million in 2011-12, $6 million in 2012-13 and $6 million in 2013-14.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was the 2010 announcement for the $18 million cut; is that right?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, that's right.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the total government spend on advertising for the 2013-14 year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The total forecast media expenditure in 2013-14 is $27 million, which amounts to a $5.3 million spending reduction.

Ms CHAPMAN: From the previous year?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: From the previous year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Last year, during estimates you were asked, Premier, about the $186 million Master Media Agency Services contract that expired on 30 June 2013. You said at that stage that this was being extended by two years, and you committed to provide the value of the extension. Are you now able to provide that answer?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On 1 July, agreements for both MEC and Starcom MediaVest were extended by two years and are due to expire on 30 June 2015; that is the 'two years' that was spoken about. Media advertising expenditure through MMA agreements for the current five-year contract period is estimated to total $155 million based on projected expenditure to the end of 2013-14.

Ms CHAPMAN: What are the outcomes, Premier, of the $300,000 spend on the public awareness campaign associated with cyber safety and the impact of digital technology on children?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is best understood as part of the Children, Technology and Gambling policy, which has a very substantial set of initiatives. We pulled together a panel of leading experts in problem gambling psychology and child development to recommend actions to address the potential issues in this area.

The panel made three recommendations. The first was the running of a community awareness campaign. The second was establishing classifications of warnings about games that included simulated gambling. That is now being handled at a national level—we pursued that. We also accepted a recommendation to create a watch list to alert parents about apps that contain simulated gambling, which was launched in April this year. We also issued a public awareness campaign that was directed at cyber-safety as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much of the $300,000 was spent on consultants?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will bring back an answer to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. The member for Bright has some gambling initiative questions.

Mr SPEIRS: On the same topic, specifically the anti-gambling website, how much did it cost to create the website www.gamblingisnogame.sa.gov.au?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not have that breakdown, but we will bring back an answer to your question.

Mr SPEIRS: I just have a couple of other questions that you will probably have to take on notice as well. On what date was that website launched, and how many hits has this website had from its launch to 30 June 2014?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will bring back that answer.

Mr SPEIRS: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to Budget Paper 4, back to page 167, on Strategic Engagement and Communications. In the 2012 Mid-Year Budget Review, the former treasurer, the member for Playford, announced that the government communications would be centralised into a hub within the DPC. It was claimed that this would save $13.3 million over three years and reduce communications staff by around 50 full-time equivalent positions. This was to start from 1 July 2013. What has happened, Premier, to this initiative? Is it on track to make the anticipated savings? Have the 50 positions to be cut been identified, in which case, which departments are involved?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It has been booked into each agency's budget, so each agency has had to handle that savings initiative in their own portfolio area. They are expected to meet their savings target.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are at the end of the first financial year of this strategy. Is it working?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Agencies have to come up with the savings, so it is a matter for them how they manage that. It is working from the point of view of Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose the question is: how many of the 50 have been identified to be cut?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Each agency has made their own arrangements to meet their savings task, and I do not have the details of each individual agency.

Ms CHAPMAN: Aren't you or your department responsible for getting any feedback on whether this has actually been achieved or not?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I say, each agency has responsibility for their own savings initiative.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the status, Premier, of the red tape reduction program Simplify?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It has actually been a very successful program. It has identified through a public communication process a series of important changes to the way in which we run government. We launched it in November last year. We sought ideas through a number of channels from the public sector workforce and the broader community. About 700 ideas were submitted, and the top ideas were presented to cabinet for endorsement. Many of the ideas offered innovative ways to streamline the internal workings of government and improve government's interaction with the community.

There are also ideas to reduce red tape for business which will complement a separate process being delivered by the Department of State Development. The majority of ideas focus on reducing the complexity of government. Simplify was a Change@SA 90-day project. Its engagement with the community is now part of the modern Public Service policy that we announced before the election.

The online engagement tool on the government's yourSAy website allowed you to submit ideas and vote on it. There were suggestion boxes in the Service SA centres. 'Idea bank' sessions were held within government agencies or submitted directly by email. It has been a very beneficial process and one that we are seeking to build on.

Ms CHAPMAN: We understand that, six months later, Mr Hallion has a new job to make it available for business enterprises to streamline red tape, and your announcements of 8 July, and you made a commitment to have a 90-day turnaround which you have referred to, but what else has actually been done as a result of this Simplify program?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I could give you a very long answer to that question. These are some of the government ones. Streamline the annual adjustment of government fees and charges to account for inflation: this has been a very long and extensive exercise producing many cabinet submissions which could be more simply dealt with. Retain specific savings made and process improvements for an innovation fund. Phase out paper publications.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, but these have all come in the last six months.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes. One government by default. Establish a common human resources policy across government and host it centrally online. Standardise transaction of human resource functions across government and host centrally online. Reduce boards and committees across government.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's where it came in. Thank you.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Establish a 'gov hub' innovation ideas servicing space. One government, one single template for ministerial and chief executive briefings and minutes which would be very helpful. Produce a whole-of-government organisational chart. Change the Motor Vehicles Act to enable more flexible transactions. Streamline and update the approval and design process for grants depending on size. Introduce rolling contracts for grants across government. Establish generic grants agreements with standard legal clauses. They are the top 10; there have been lots of others.

Mr GARDNER: I have a series of questions that I will be asking of all ministers in relation to all agencies and departments reporting to those ministers. I will read through them and you can take them on notice.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2013-14 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of employment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2013-14, please provide the number of public servants broken down into heads and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

3. In the financial year 2013-14, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2014-15?

4. Between 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost to each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more—(a) which has been abolished and (b) which has been created?

5. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister and, for 2013-14, provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grants and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2014, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will take those questions on notice.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions I declare the examination of the proposed payments for the Auditor-General's Department closed. I declare consideration of the proposed payments to the Department of Premier in Cabinet and Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet adjourned until later today. In accordance with the agreed timetable, I advise that the committee will stand suspended until 11.30.

Sitting suspended from 11:15 to 11:32.